Gun Control, It Should Not Be Allowed Since Its Too Dangerous

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Gun Control and the Prevention of Violence
Gun control is one of the most controversial issues in the United States (U.S.). The public, the media, and even the lawmakers never seem to agree on whether gun control is necessary or whether it is enough. The gun control debate is highly rooted in the Second Amendment which allows civilians to protect themselves from attacks from outsiders. Opponents of gun control have used the Second Amendment as the lifeline for their argument against gun control, while proponents have used gun-related violence to support gun control. The U.S. is significantly different from other high-income countries when it comes to gun control because, as indicated by Hemenway (2), it has the highest guns per capita, coupled with weak gun control legislature. These could be the contributing factors to the high rate of mass shootings happening in schools and the high rate of suicides, especially among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed suicide among the top ten causes of deaths in the U.S. and revealed that more than half of those suicides are gun inflicted. As such, gun control should be well-monitored and the review process should be more thorough to ensure that the public is protected from the dangers posed by gun ownership.
Every citizen has a right to personal safety, and should, therefore, be allowed to take measures to ensure that personal safety is a priority. Thus, people opposing gun control say that guns give people an opportunity for self-defense from assailants. According to Cook and Goss (16), it is legally allowed to use guns for self-defense, especially when the attacker comes to your private home. This makes personal protection and self-defense an important part of the gun control debate because people have a right to safety and some believe that gun ownership is the best way to enhance personal safety. Cook and Goss (17) further note that guns are an effective means of protection and self-defense from an attacker. While this is true, guns are not always the most effective solution in a confrontation with an attacker because the presence of a gun causes panic and a lot of mistakes can be made when people panic. In addition, it is important to consider the implications of having a gun with the intention of self-protection. According to Hemenway and Solnick (24), the use of guns for self-protection puts a victim at a higher risk of injury than when the use other protective measures such as fleeing or asking for help is adopted. This is an indication that while gun use is effective for self-protection, it puts the gun owner at more risk of injury. What is more interesting is the fact that while opponents of gun control have stated that self-defense is the main reason for using guns, Hemenway and Solnick (25) revealed that guns are used in less than 1% of crimes that involve personal contact between the gun owner (victim) and the attacker. Thus, using self-protection as a major reason for gun ownership should be reviewed and consequently, the use of guns should be heavily controlled to minimize the risk of injury.
In line with self-protection, opponents of gun control state that they use guns not only to protect themselves but also to protect their families, especially during a home invasion. As revealed by Cook and Goss (21), gun owners state that they need the guns to protect a household member from an injury following an attack by intruders. It is in every individual’s right to protect loved ones from any attack, but the question that ought to be asked is whether the need to protect them should be at the expense of their general safety. While people can effectively use guns to protect their loved ones, having guns inside homes poses other greater risks. A report by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute revealed that approximately 89% of deaths resulting from unintentional shooting happened in homes where children were playing with loaded guns. This does not only point to the negligence of some gun owners but also indicates that having guns around can increase instances of death and injury in homes. This points out to a greater need for gun control, especially given that attackers do not invade homes every day, but children are in homes every day. In addition, as revealed by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, having a gun at home increases the chances of severe injuries in domestic violence. Their report further reveals that women in a violent relationship are 8 times more likely to get murdered by their partner when a gun is available. The presence of a gun in the house gives a violent partner the upper hand and when things get bad, the partner is likely to use the gun. It is therefore imperative that before considering the use of guns as a protective mechanism from outsiders, the probability of an insider using the gun against a member of the household is eliminated. This can only be done if stringent and effective gun control laws are put in place to protect other household members from injury or death.
Further, opponents of gun control posit that guns are owned legally and rightfully, especially under the Second Amendment. As revealed by Spitzer (1), people against gun control argue that imposing further restrictions on guns would be an infringement of the constitution, given that the Second Amendment is put in place to ensure that citizens can protect themselves from external attacks. The current gun laws allow for vetting before a civilian can be issued with a gun, yet there are so many criminals in the streets carrying guns, some of which are already registered. As reported by Hemenway (12), criminals are able to somehow access guns from people who have legal ownership after passing the background checks. This explains why, despite the existing gun regulation laws, bad guys are still...